WhyteRaven74:Given how badly some schools are run they don't know what the needs of their communities are.

But a bureaucrat at the top of the education chain knows best?

There's a wisdom of crowds that needs to be exploited with education. The aggregate decision making of tens of thousands of communities designing school systems based on the jobs in their area, culture, demographics and other factors are going to produce a more enlightened populace than one person, or even 535 people deciding what is best.

o5iiawah:Mrtraveler01: o5iiawah: A public school isn't socialism. if it is run and funded locally with input from parents who hold administrators accountable, that is about the smartest and best form of government you can have.

[www.lolwut.com image 533x594]

a public school is a perfectly legitimate entity in a republic....I think you forgot to read the rest of my post.

o5iiawah:he aggregate decision making of tens of thousands of communities designing school systems based on the jobs in their area, culture, demographics and other factors are going to produce a more enlightened populace than one person, or even 535 people deciding what is best.

Texas and Kansas beg to differ.

But hey, thanks to those states, it'll make it easier for me to find a job over their unqualified asses.

This includes roughly 3 out of 4 retirees (who don't have enough taxable income to pay federal income tax). Not all of them poors even... my grandma-in-law is worth a couple million (mostly in South Dakota farmland) and hasn't paid any federal income tax in 20 years (she has some taxable income, but the property tax on the farmland is deductible leaving a fairly low AGI). And, '47%' has to include the AARP members... without them you can't get over 30%.

o5iiawah:WhyteRaven74: Given how badly some schools are run they don't know what the needs of their communities are.

But a bureaucrat at the top of the education chain knows best?

There's a wisdom of crowds that needs to be exploited with education. The aggregate decision making of tens of thousands of communities designing school systems based on the jobs in their area, culture, demographics and other factors are going to produce a more enlightened populace than one person, or even 535 people deciding what is best.

They'd better know best otherwise why are you paying them so much? With their fancy elitist degrees....bastards.

Also, have you tried to run anything at your local school? 1/2 the parents show up. Soooooooo disappointing. And you expect this crowd to design a school system?? You'll have the input of 1/2 the people anyway.

themeaningoflifeisnot:Grungehamster: I can't believe there are people honestly calling this the thing that puts the nail in the coffin of the Romney campaign. Have these people paid any attention to the language that has been used for years? The fact is that the meme that someone would support a Democrat means they are on the dole and living off the welfare state, and that the fact that Democrats are competitive is a function of the "fact" that roughly half of the people in this country are mooching off of you and the rich, and they have to be forced out of dependency.

I'm seeing more people stoked over Romney making the comments than I see people whose minds have been swayed by them.

What planet are you on?

The right wing has circled the wagons. It won't have a ripple effect just because who is going to find out about it in a way that isn't spun as "he was just talking about how the moochers are already in Obama's camp, as we already know" and gloss over him saying they are 47% of the electorate, no matter how obviously false that argument is?

o5iiawah:In the absence of a crime, When did one person incur a debt to take care of another?

1. Because we are human beings, not animals in the jungle.2. Because any one of us could be in the same situation ourselves, even the most wealthy of us.

Do you really think we would have survived as a species if we did not help each other and share what we had?That is what sets us apart from most other animals... and even some of them group together for their mutual benefit. Packs, prides, gaggles, herds, etc.... strength and survival in numbers.

I have. you didn't answer my question. You never answer any questions because you dont have any real arguments.

Mrtraveler01:And school boards in Kansas and Texas give me little confidence that they can they do understand the needs of their communities.

If only there was some way to fire failing teachers and provide choices to parents whose kids were doomed to go to a bad school simply based on their zipcode or where they were on a bus route. I'm sure some congressman from CT has a much better idea how some 2nd graders in Texas should learn their times tables.

rewind2846:I just KNEW this Mittacular fu(k-up would make a tasty, tasty thread.

Not a good way to endear yourself to da votahs, Mitt... especially when so many of those people on welfare and food stamps and student loans and pell grants and SSI and other assistance are (or were, if they have any sense at all) republicans. I know you were talking with a bunch of your richy-rich-rich buddies and all and didn't think what you said would leave that room, but even with the bad recording the condescension was thick enough to cut with a bejeweled dagger.

If I were a working-class republican, I'd be pissed.If I were a used-to-be-working-class-but-laid-off republican I'd be even pissed-er.

47% of the citizens of this country. I can smell the smoke from here.

And it's not like that 47% is just people who don't pay federal income taxes because they don't work. It includes the working poor who take advantage of earned income credits. It includes working folk who may not pay federal income tax, but still pay state income tax, which can be pretty significant. It includes working folks who may not pay federal income tax, but do pay significant payroll taxes that fund SS and Medicare.

So, Mitt is shiatting on not just the Republican stereotype of someone sucking at the government teat--black urban welfare queens--but also all of the millions in that 47% number who are actually working hard for not much.

o5iiawah:We arent a society where a minority provide and the majority receive.

No one said we were, asshole. I work, I pay taxes (income, property, etc..), and I have compassion for others who are less fortunate, and don't mind if my tax dollars help them. What's YOUR excuse for being a sub-human piece of shiat?

o5iiawah:Go fark yourself if you think you're entitled to someone else's property simply because you exist.

Hey, look, I found a picture of you in the background.

It's too bad we can feed the f*cking idiots like you in this country to the starving children.

mainstreet62:o5iiawah: We arent a society where a minority provide and the majority receive.

No one said we were, asshole. I work, I pay taxes (income, property, etc..), and I have compassion for others who are less fortunate, and don't mind if my tax dollars help them. What's YOUR excuse for being a sub-human piece of shiat?

I have. you didn't answer my question. You never answer any questions because you dont have any real arguments.

Mrtraveler01: And school boards in Kansas and Texas give me little confidence that they can they do understand the needs of their communities.

If only there was some way to fire failing teachers and provide choices to parents whose kids were doomed to go to a bad school simply based on their zipcode or where they were on a bus route. I'm sure some congressman from CT has a much better idea how some 2nd graders in Texas should learn their times tables.

Either that or let some religious zealot on the local school board force schools to teach creationism.

And Charter Schools? Really? They're no better than public schools, studies have shown this.

David Weigel rightly pointed out that the narrative of "the 47% who don't pay income taxes is Obama's base!!!" doesn't really make sense given that most of the people who don't pay income taxes are retirees, and old people tend to vote Republican.

He's going to focus test the video like crazy over the next couple days before he decides if his "clarification" needs a "clarification."

I'll believe that the Republicans don't believe he stepped on his dick, AGAIN, when I start seeing commercials with Romney repeating the statement run by the Romney campaign, and not by the Obama campaign.

The generation ahead of me built this country for me so I owe them something.The generation that comes after me, I would like them to be able to do their part when they get older and to help take care of me when I am older so I guess i need to provide for them.

It's almost like these people think there is some kind of social contract between a government and citizens implying the government has a certain responsibility to make sure the people's needs are met. What wacked-out liberals thought of that idea?

Grungehamster:The right wing has circled the wagons. It won't have a ripple effect just because who is going to find out about it in a way that isn't spun as "he was just talking about how the moochers are already in Obama's camp, as we already know" and gloss over him saying they are 47% of the electorate, no matter how obviously false that argument is?

No way this is gonna seriously impact the race. I don't believe there's a single Republican out there who believes they are part of that 47%. Part of voting Republican means you already see yourself as smarter and better than most of the country anyways.

rewind2846:o5iiawah:In the absence of a crime, When did one person incur a debt to take care of another?

1. Because we are human beings, not animals in the jungle.2. Because any one of us could be in the same situation ourselves, even the most wealthy of us.

Do you really think we would have survived thrived as a species if we did not help each other and share what we had? That is what sets us apart from most other animals... and even some of them group together for their mutual benefit. Packs, prides, gaggles, herds, etc.... strength and survival in numbers.

I kinda do wish the extreme right, Social Darwinian, theocratic types could carve just one state off of the Union to completely run as their own for about 25 to 30 years. Mass migration of right wing ideological types there so as to tip the balance just enough in the remaining United States to be more progressive. I would like to see some pure, "fark you, I got mine", anti-science, no one deserves health care, our laws should be based on the Bible (ignoring all that love thy neighbor and help the poor bullshiat), anti-gay, creationist educational system government run for over a generation. Then at the end of the 25 or 30 years let that one independent country, former state, vote on whether or not to rejoin the rest of the union and the rest of the nation vote on whether it should be able to rejoin (IF it decides to come crawling back to the First World).

I'm guessing by the end of that 25 to 30 years it would look something pretty damn close to a theocratic, developing world hellhole. Oh, like any good hellhole, there would be a very elite class of super rich. And they would be pissing all over, er, I mean, trickling down all over, the rest (vast majority) of that fun little nation. Maybe it would be enough to end this nonsense once and for all, and we could rejoin the rest of the developed democracies in sanity.

CorporatePerson:Grungehamster: The right wing has circled the wagons. It won't have a ripple effect just because who is going to find out about it in a way that isn't spun as "he was just talking about how the moochers are already in Obama's camp, as we already know" and gloss over him saying they are 47% of the electorate, no matter how obviously false that argument is?

No way this is gonna seriously impact the race. I don't believe there's a single Republican out there who believes they are part of that 47%. Part of voting Republican means you already see yourself as smarter and better than most of the country anyways.

skullkrusher:mainstreet62: o5iiawah: We arent a society where a minority provide and the majority receive.

No one said we were, asshole. I work, I pay taxes (income, property, etc..), and I have compassion for others who are less fortunate, and don't mind if my tax dollars help them. What's YOUR excuse for being a sub-human piece of shiat?

tarkus1980:David Weigel rightly pointed out that the narrative of "the 47% who don't pay income taxes is Obama's base!!!" doesn't really make sense given that most of the people who don't pay income taxes are retirees, and old people tend to vote Republican.

Even more of the 47% are comprised of working American families who pay payroll taxes but get enough deductions from their homes, children and marriages to their income tax liabilities a net zero. A good portion of these deductions were implemented by Reagan and Dubya.

Maybe these were the ambiguous, unspecified "tax loopholes" Romney and Ryan have been hinting at closing.

Shrugging Atlas:Mrtraveler01: Shrugging Atlas: Jesus it's the top story on BBC's website.

I can't remember. Was Obama's "Clinging to guns and religion" comment the top story on the BBC website when it broke? Because NPR and other media outlets are basically saying this is Romney's version of that.

I can't speak for BBC specifically, but I remember that story being all over the place back then...it's all people were talking about for days.

I'm not sure I see how the two remarks are the same thing though. To me you've got the Mexican comment which really has no parallel with Obama's guns/religion comment. Then you've got the fact he's claiming 47% of Obama supporters think of themselves as victims and entitled to government handouts. I'm not sure how I see that really comparing to the 'clinging to their guns and religion' thing. Maybe it's there and I'm missing it though.

]

No, he's claiming that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what, and that those 47% of Americans are lazy and want handouts and believe they are entitled to housing and healthcare on the government dime... not that 47% of Obama voters are that, and 53% are people he's cool with. It was an inelegant version of Reagan's welfare queen moment, Bush's Willie Horton moment and Clinton's Sista Souljah moment.

I have. you didn't answer my question. You never answer any questions because you dont have any real arguments.

Mrtraveler01: And school boards in Kansas and Texas give me little confidence that they can they do understand the needs of their communities.

If only there was some way to fire failing teachers and provide choices to parents whose kids were doomed to go to a bad school simply based on their zipcode or where they were on a bus route. I'm sure some congressman from CT has a much better idea how some 2nd graders in Texas should learn their times tables.

Someone who studies education would know more about teaching 2nd graders than parents would, and should be informing the congressman what to do. Leaders why do we elect them if not to lead.

spongeboob:rewind2846: o5iiawah:In the absence of a crime, When did one person incur a debt to take care of another?

1. Because we are human beings, not animals in the jungle.2. Because any one of us could be in the same situation ourselves, even the most wealthy of us.

Do you really think we would have survived thrived as a species if we did not help each other and share what we had? That is what sets us apart from most other animals... and even some of them group together for their mutual benefit. Packs, prides, gaggles, herds, etc.... strength and survival in numbers.

FTFY there would be homo saipens but they wouldn't be peoplecorporations.

mainstreet62:skullkrusher: mainstreet62: o5iiawah: We arent a society where a minority provide and the majority receive.

No one said we were, asshole. I work, I pay taxes (income, property, etc..), and I have compassion for others who are less fortunate, and don't mind if my tax dollars help them. What's YOUR excuse for being a sub-human piece of shiat?

Egalitarian:this kind of thing reminds me of something I read 20 or more years ago, and I think it was a reported account by Herman Melville but I can't actually find it. If anybody else remembers this please let me know!

In a fishing community on the northeast coast, in the 1700's or 1800's, an unmarried mother with her two young children fall into a sink hole. This is on some fairly major thoroughfare in the town. Despite the cries of the children, nobody rescues them or helps them. One of the children dies, then the mother, then the other child. The bodies stink and somebody finally gets around to pouring lime down the hole.

This to me is emblematic of libertarianism. If you are a penniless, friendless person who falls in a pit, nobody will help you. You will be left to die and the only charity around is somebody shelling out for the lime to cover your rotting corpse. Atheist Randroids say "oh well the church will help you" - yeah if the local churches deem you fit to help. Single mothers and gay people need not apply.

That was from a Melville novel called "Redburn: His First Voyage," i believe. It was fictional, and i don't think they were in a sinkhole, they were just starving in the streets. Young Master Redburn mused that someone should put them out of their misery, but realized that a society that wouldn't offer a penny of help would spend thousands of pounds to catch a murderer. And then they died and out came the lime.

neenerist:mrshowrules: If you have the false assumption that tax cuts are good for the economy,

You have the false assumption we (Canada) did anything superior. That moron Harper pumped $600+B of mortgage guarantees into the economy via the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Real estate and associated industries are now a hugely inflated percentage of the GDP and the population has personal debt levels rivaling America at the peak of their bubble. Our mouth breathing conservatives used a housing bubble for economic stimulus and we're about to pay the piper. For a generation. So please, please stop.

we didn't cut taxes and we implemented a National sales tax and we properly regulated the banks. If you don't believe me, read the articles about how we avoided the full brunt of the 2008 meltdown. What are we going to pay the piper and when?

Not a good way to endear yourself to da votahs, Mitt... especially when so many of those people on welfare and food stamps and student loans and pell grants and SSI and other assistance are (or were, if they have any sense at all) republicans. I know you were talking with a bunch of your richy-rich-rich buddies and all and didn't think what you said would leave that room, but even with the bad recording the condescension was thick enough to cut with a bejeweled dagger.

If I were a working-class republican, I'd be pissed.If I were a used-to-be-working-class-but-laid-off republican I'd be even pissed-er.

47% of the citizens of this country. I can smell the smoke from here.

And it's not like that 47% is just people who don't pay federal income taxes because they don't work. It includes the working poor who take advantage of earned income credits. It includes working folk who may not pay federal income tax, but still pay state income tax, which can be pretty significant. It includes working folks who may not pay federal income tax, but do pay significant payroll taxes that fund SS and Medicare.

So, Mitt is shiatting on not just the Republican stereotype of someone sucking at the government teat--black urban welfare queens--but also all of the millions in that 47% number who are actually working hard for not much.

rewind2846:1. Because we are human beings, not animals in the jungle.2. Because any one of us could be in the same situation ourselves, even the most wealthy of us.

Do you really think we would have survived as a species if we did not help each other and share what we had?That is what sets us apart from most other animals... and even some of them group together for their mutual benefit. Packs, prides, gaggles, herds, etc.... strength and survival in numbers.

The argument is not that we should help one another but whether it should be compulsory by law at the Federal level. The fact that we are human beings means that we need to operate our society on a basis of law. When you make a statement like "we are humans, so we should help each other" do you mean that each human should out of the goodness of their heart help someone else in need or are you in favor of making it Law that if one individual is in need, it is the obligation of another individual to provide with subsequent punishment if the individual in unwilling or unable? Personally? I'm in favor of a small safety net to help individuals out and my state (PA) has a small income tax which supports those things. Consequently, I am relatively close to my local representatives who vote on these laws at the state level..

People who frame arguments like this often do so with 2 choices: Central Control or Mad-Max anarchy....That if you oppose massive federal benefit programs then you want to live in Somalia.

Mrtraveler01:But hey, thanks to those states, it'll make it easier for me to find a job over their unqualified asses.

And it shouldn't be the job of a steelworker in PA or a personal trainer in California to subsidize the lousy decisions of a school board in Texas since those individuals have no say in the matter, they are just asked to pay taxes and shut the fark up.

ExperianScaresCthulhu:Shrugging Atlas: Mrtraveler01: Shrugging Atlas: Jesus it's the top story on BBC's website.

I can't remember. Was Obama's "Clinging to guns and religion" comment the top story on the BBC website when it broke? Because NPR and other media outlets are basically saying this is Romney's version of that.

I can't speak for BBC specifically, but I remember that story being all over the place back then...it's all people were talking about for days.

I'm not sure I see how the two remarks are the same thing though. To me you've got the Mexican comment which really has no parallel with Obama's guns/religion comment. Then you've got the fact he's claiming 47% of Obama supporters think of themselves as victims and entitled to government handouts. I'm not sure how I see that really comparing to the 'clinging to their guns and religion' thing. Maybe it's there and I'm missing it though.]

No, he's claiming that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what, and that those 47% of Americans are lazy and want handouts and believe they are entitled to housing and healthcare on the government dime... not that 47% of Obama voters are that, and 53% are people he's cool with. It was an inelegant version of Reagan's welfare queen moment, Bush's Willie Horton moment and Clinton's Sista Souljah moment.